


A NATIONAL UNIVERSITY: 



REVIEW OF THE PAPER READ BEFORE THE HIGHER DEPARTMENT 

OF THE NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATION AT ELMIRA, 

N. Y., AUG. 5, 1873, BY DR. CHARLES W. ELIOT, LL.D., 

PRESIDENT OF HARVARD COLLEGE. 



BY JOHN W. HOYT, 

CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE 



IJ^ead at the Detroit Meeting of the Association^ A ug. 5, 1874.] 



Atwood & Culver, Printers and Stereotypers, Madison, Wis. 



Hi 



A NATIONAL UNIVERSITY 



The first act of this Association touching the subject of a 
national university was to declare the conviction that a 
true university is " a leading want of American education." 

This act was not done in a corner. The declaration was 
made in the hearing of our most famous schools, and in the 
face of the whole country. It was the unanimous voice of 
as large a body of distinguished educators as I have ever 
seen assembled. 

The resolution thus adopted provided for the appoint- 
ment of a national committee to consider how this want 
; should be met, and to report at the next meeting of the 
Association, in 1870. Owing to the lateness of the date at 
which the chairman received the list of appointees, the 
calling a full meeting of the committee could not be at- 
tempted. Even correspondence with any but the nearest 
members was impracticable. The report submitted at 
Cleveland was only preliminary, therefore, and, by agree- 
ment of the few members present at that meeting of the 
Association, was signed by the chairman alone. 

The report presented at the St. Louis meeting, in 1871, 
sufficiently outlined the institution that was in the minds 
of the committee, as well as of many other educators who had 
been consulted, and bore the name of each and every mem- 
ber of the committee present at that meeting of the Asso- 
ciation. It did more than to outline the proposed univers- 
ity. It recommended the appointment of " a permanent 
committee, * * to be charged with the duty of further 



conducting the enterprise to a successful issue, whether by 
means of conference and correspondence, or through the 
agency of a special convention." 

That this second report, after having been read at a full 
general session of the Association, was adopted without a 
dissenting voice, should finally silence the absurd, if not 
insulting, claim set up by an enemy of the enterprise, at 
the last session — this, namely, that the members of the 
Association either did not know what they were doing on 
these several occasions, or that they were so amiable and 
obliging as to forego the opposition they knew they 
ought to make to a succession of serious and important 
propositions which fully committed them to that enter- 
prise before the country and the world. 

The permanent National University Committee, thus 
provided for and duly appointed,'proceeded, after a free ex- 
pression of views in council, to apply the principles ap- 
proved by the Association to the framing of a bill that 
should be first submitted to as large a number as practi- 
cable of competent friends of education in all portions of 
the country, for their criticism, and finally be laid before 
Congress — not with the view of urging immediate action, 
but rather of getting the subject difinitely before the 
public, in order that judicious action might the sooner 
be had. 

After the most careful consideration, many conferen- 
ces and much correspondence between members of the 
committee and numerous other persons, and the printing 
and widely circulating of two successive editions of the 
committee's " draft," a bill was at length presented to Con- 
gress, late in the first session of the year 1872. These 
facts were officially stated by me, in response to a call 
from the president of the Association, in a meeting of that 
year, at Boston; on which occasion I also gave an analy- 
sis of the bill as introduced, afterwards distributing copies 
to all who applied for them. 



Thus far there had been none to question the fidelity and 
industry of the committee, and no voice had been uplifted 
to oppose the object of their labors. 

Subsequently, — at the last hour of that same meet- 
ing, — when the subject was called up by the president of 
the Department of Higher Instruction, there was encoun- 
tered the first opposition with which the measure had 
been openly met from the beginning. 

Strangely enough, that opposition came from a citizen of 
Massachuetts, a state chiefly distinguished for its early and 
enlightened legislation in the interest of education, and 
which to-day claims precedence because of what she has 
accomplished through a persistent application of the the- 
ory that the greatness of a state is best guaranteed by fos- 
tering agencies that look to the universal and highest pos- 
sible education of its people. Stranger still, it came from 
the neighborhood of Boston, a city everywhere noted for its 
claims to being the literary, if not the intellectual, centre 
of America — a city proud of its monuments to Horace 
Mann. Strangest of all, that opposition came from the 
oldest college on the western hemisphere, an institution 
founded by the colonial court, encouraged by municipali- 
ties, and fostered by the commonwealth, — and from a man 
who rose to his present high position as president of that 
ancient and honored college from the stepping-stone of an 
institution made preeminent among the technical schools 
of the country by funds derived from the national bounty. 

What course did he take? Appointed, with the assent 
of a dozen members of a single department of the Associa- 
tion, as one member of a committee of three to report 
upon the provisions of the pending bill, at the end of a 
year, without consultation with the other members, of 
whom I was one, and, so far as is known to me, without 
the slightest imtimations to either of them of what was 



6 

to be its character, lie submitted, at Elmira, in 1873, what 
he styled a " report," but what was, in fact, a sort of cas- 
tigation of the Association; an artful assault upon the 
integrity of the committee, more especially of its chairman ; 
a disingenuous and superficial treatment of the com- 
mittee's draft of a bill; a blind attack upon the whole 
policy of government aid to education; and finally a 
most astonishing treatise on the constitution, functions 
and destiny of the American Republic ! 

In the years past, I have sought to occupy the time of 
the Association as little as possible with the subject of a 
national university, important as I have believed it to be. 

At the date of your last meeting, when the president of 
Harvard made his assault, I was serving my cpuntry and 
the cause of education at the Vienna Exposition, and 
hence could not speak for either the committee or the 
cause. If, therefore, on this occasion, I am to speak to 
you at all, it must be at such length, and with such plain- 
ness of speech, as in mj' judgment the occasion demands. 

As the paper of President Eliot is thus far the only 
open effort at a resistance to the university enterprise, and 
may be supposed, not only to have covered the whole 
ground of the opposition, but to have employed every 
means of attack, perhaps I cannot do the cause better ser- 
vice, at this time, than by pointing out the insecurity of 
his positions and the meagerness of his forces. 

Of President Eliot's reflections upon the Association for 
allowing itself to be led astray and committed to strange 
doctrines, I will only say that the Association seems to 
have submitted to the infliction with a degree of patience 
and humility that fully entitled it to the mantle of charity, 
which at length he was so merciful as to throw over its 
misdeeds. 



Nor do I deem it necssary to more than point out 
tlie gross injustice of his charge of official action, on my 
part, independent of the committee. The files of my cor- 
respondence; the record of long and fatiguing journeys for 
the sake of conference, where full meetings could not be 
held; and the account of heavy expenses incurred, solely 
in order that whatever it was necessary to do should be 
done hy the committee^ and with the full concurrence of all 
its members; these afford 'the data for a refutation that 
would move any just antagonist to a suitable apology. 

The charge that the committee had been " hasty " in 
bringing the matter of a national University to the atten- 
tion of Congress is so absurd as to seem like irony. It is 
sufficiently answered by these facts: that the subject has 
been at various times, in many places, and by the foremost 
educators and statesmen, discussed all along from the 
foundation of the government down to the present 
moment; that it was urged upon this Association as long 
ago as 1860; that at the date of presenting the "tenta- 
tive" bill to Congress the plan cfHnstmctiua therein 
embodied had been three full years in preparation, and 
had the sanction of a multitude of able educators in all 
parts of the country; and that, having introduced their 
bill into both houses of Congress, in order that it might 
the more certainly attract the attention of interested and 
competent critics, the committee not only did not urge 
the matter to an issue, but expressed to the congressional 
committees, who had it in charge, their wish that no 
action should be taken until the bill had been thoroughly 
sifted and well matured. 

The same spirit of unfairness is further manifested in 
that portion of President Eliot's paper which touches 
upon the substance of the committee's reports and the 
provisions of their bill. He does not challenge their 
statement of facts and principles, for he dare not; and 



so he makes a fling at the manner of their presentation 
and adoption. He is unable to find many faults in the 
provisions of their bill; and hence he lugs in another bill 
for which they are in no way responsible,* in order that 
he may multiply his criticisms. Not satisfied with this 
piece of legerdemain, he so far yields to his desire to dis- 
credit the committee, and weaken confidence in the merits 
and vitality of the measure, as to support his purpose by 
direct and unqualified misstatements of fact; saying of 
these bills, without distinction, " They are the work of 
private individuals only, and nothing has thus far come of 
them;" and again, "neither bill was supported by anybody 
in any way, and neither bill has been heard of since it was 
brought into Congress until this day." Whereas, one of 
them was the work of a committee of this Association, was 
warmly supported by influential friends, and had been 
considered by the House Committee on Education, and, on 
the 3d of March next preceding his statement, been unani- 
onously reported hack with their approval and cordial rec- 
ommendation^ as will appear from the following concluding 
paragraph of that report as published by the House: 

"If, then, it be true, a» the committee have briefly endeavored to show, that 
our country is at present wanting in the facilitiuB for the highest culture In many 
departments of learning; and if it be true that a cen'ral university, besides meet- 
ing this demand, would quicken, strengthen and systematize the schools of the 
•country from the lowest to the highest ; that it would increase the amount and 
the leve of pure learning, now too little appreciated by our people, and so Im- 
prove the intellectual and social status of the nation; that it would tend to ho- 
mogenity of sentiment, and thus strengthen the unity and patriotism of the peo- 
ple; that, by gathering at its seat distinguished savants, not only of our own but 
of other lands, it would eventually make of our national capital the intellectual 
center of the world, and so help the United States of America to rank first and 
highest among the enlightened cations of the earth; then Is it most manifestly 
the duty of Congress to establish and amply endow such a university at the earli- 
est possible day. 

"The committee, Iherefore, aflBrm their approval of tho bill and recommend its 
passage by the House." 



* A bill introduced by Senator Howe as an act of courtesy to another Senator, 
and without knowledge of either its origin or contents. 



9 

President Eliot's discussion of the bill is mainly con- 
lined to criticisms on unimportant points, such as the best 
friends of the general plan might differ upon. No general 
principle of the bill is directly combatted. But he does 
not make a convincing argument against even the details 
he attempts to criticise, as I shall briefly show. 

Touching the subject of organization, he graciously ad- 
mits that " the object which the author of this bill had in 
view * * * was a laudable one, namely, to detach the 
national university from the national government;" but 
he cannot see why there should be " one member from 
eacli state in a governing board of a university, about 
which there is nothing sectional, sectarian or partizan." 
He approves, then, of the principle of non-localization and 
non-centralization in the government of the university, 
but disapproves of what is plainly a reasonable, if not the 
surest, method oi preventing localization and centralization, 
while at the same time securing the university from the 
dangers of sectarian or partizan control, and directly pro- 
moting the diffusion of its educational and nationalizing 
influence. If he cannot see why a like rule of distribu- 
tion should not apply to the professors as well as to those 
who are to govern in the general management of the 
institution, the fault is in his perceptions, and not in the 
nature of the case. 

He disapproves that provision of section 15 which "gives 
senators and representatives a right to nominate candidates 
from their states or districts for free scholarships," pro- 
nouncing it a " copy of the worst feature of the Academy 
at West Point." But, with characteristic unfairness, he 
omits mention of the important provision which, in the same 
connection, requires that the candidates for such scolarships 
shall be nominated to the university " on the recommenda- 
tion of any institution of learning from which they have 
received their degrees respectively," which "degree," as 



10 

provided in a preceding section, must be ''''from some insti- 
tution recognized bij the tmiversity authorities." The secu- 
rity thus given against unfit nominations, and the stimu- 
lating influence such a provision would exert upon the 
faculties and students of the state and local colleges, can- 
not have escaped even the eye of President Eliot, but a 
garbled extract suited his purposes better, and hence he 
stated but half the truth, and the least important half. 

In saying of section 13 (which provides that " instruc- 
tion shall at all times be as nearly free for students as is 
consistent with the income of the university and the best, 
interests of learning"), "This is a sounding phrase, ca- 
pable, like not a few other phrases in the bill, of widely 
differing construction," he touches unwittingly upon a. 
characteristic of the bill which to a man of broad views 
must strongly commend it. For, while sufficiently defi- 
nite in all matters in which definiteness is essential, as in 
organization, rank, location and foundation, it is pur- 
posely made general and elastic, so to speak, in those 
matters relating to the constitution of faculties and of 
the professoriate, as well as to salaries, tuition, courses, 
degrees, etc., in order that there ma}'- be, in the time to 
come, all necessary freedom in adapting the university to 
changing conditions. 

His criticism of section 14, which aims at giving the 
institution rank as a true university — and hence provides 
that " no person shall be admitted for purposes of regular 
study and graduation who has not previously received the 
degree of bachelor of arts, or a degree of equal value,, 
from some institution recognized b}' the university au- 
thorities " — is three-fold: First, it is " singular; " second- 
ly, it "cannot be a serious one," having been "probably 
intended to quiet the apprehensions of the three hundred in- 
stitutions which now give the degree of bachelor of arts;" 
and, thirdly, " if enforced, the regular students of the new 



11 

university would be few, except in the professional depart- 
ments.'" 

Now we admit the singularity of this provision. But 
therein consists its chief merit. It is exactly because no 
institution in America has such a provision, — because we 
have as yet no university, as compared with the European 
standards, themselves quite below an ideal standard, — that 
it has been deemed necessary to establish a university. 
This section contains in fact the essence of the bill, re- 
veals the motive of the entire movement originating with 
this association. It virtually declares that the institution 
shall he for tnen^ and chiefly for men of disciplined minds, 
at present unable to find anywhere on this continent the in- 
struction and guidance they crave; not for boys, who are pro- 
vided for already by the ''three hundred institutions" to 
which President Eliot refers. Moreover, this section 14 is 
" singular " in a very important respect other than in giving 
the university the rank of a post-graduate institution : it pro- 
vides, as will be observed, that the candidate for admis- 
sion, if looking to a full course and a degree, shall not only 
come with evidence of preparatory study, but that his 
degree has been conferred by an institution " recognized hy 
the university authorities.'''' In other words, it requires 
that the candidate shall have intellectual attainments 
fairly represented by the bachelor's degree, and to that end 
makes it incumbent on the National University to inquire 
into the courses of study and conditions of graduation of 
every institution in the land sending candidates for admis- 
sion to its high faculties. And who does not see that, in this 
country, where every state has its own system, and every 
school of college rank its own standards, such authority 
lodged in a central institution would become a potent 
means for the elevation and coordination of all our 
schools and colleges ? Who does not see that the tendency 
of such a provision would be to give us eventually a grand 



12 

national system of education worthy to be called the Amer- 
ican system, and that, too, without the intervention of any 
arbitrary power centralized in the government itself, a 
thing to which, as a people, we seem to be constitutionally 
opposed? 

As to the number of students who would resort to the 
university, that, as he admits, is a matter of " judgment." 
Suppose the number other than '' in the professional de- 
■partraenis^^ icould at first be "few;" is that a sufficient 
reason why this people should continue for yet other gen- 
erations to pay tribute to the universities of foreign 
lands? What if the well-disciplined young men of the 
country, eager for the high class of instruction to be fur- 
nished in the faculties of science, philosophy and letters, 
should not, at the beginning, number one hundred, or 
twenty even ; shall we therefore deny to these few thirsty 
spirits the water of intellectual life found onl}^ at the 
highest sources of knowledge and inspiration? And does 
any one doubt that, if the fountains were once opened, 
and the invitation given, the number of those seeking 
them would rapidly increase ? Have we nOt, on the other 
hand, in the hundreds of young men now seeking such fa- 
cilities in foreign lands, and in the considerable number 
found lingering about the halls of our better furnished col- 
leges of this country, for post-graduate study, good evi- 
dence that there is at this time a large American demand 
for university advantages? 

Again, would it not be worth something to the profes- 
sions^ so-called, to have a footing in this country where 
they would, not only be free from the temptation to adopt 
those selfish expedients which at the present cramp and 
degrade nearly everyone of them, but also have a tiou arco for 
uplifting all the professional schools to a higher level ? And 
how much would it not be worth to the new professions 
of architecture, navigation, engineering, mining and met- 



13 

allurgy, agriculture, commerce and finance, and statesman- 
ship, could they all be planted side by side, guided by 
master hands, and fostered by the nation? 

Concerning the detail of location, to which President 
Eliot directs so much of his efiPort, the congressional com- 
mittee's report furnishes a concise and convincing answer, 
in these words: 

" The bill provides that the university shall be established at the national capi- 
tal, where alone can be found convenient neutral ground in which the whole peo- 
ple of the United States have a common interest; where are annually gathered 
the representatives of every section of the country; where also are resident the 
representatives of all the foreign powers with whom we have intercourse; where 
are found to such an extent as nowhere else in this country, most important aux- 
iliaries in the form of the various government establishments, literary, sclentiflc 
and industrial ; and, finally, where alone the government has unquestioned au- 
thority to establish and maintain such an institution." 

I have done with my review of President Eliot's criti- 
cisms on the details of the university bill. No member of 
the committee has ever dairaed it to be without fault. 
Had they held such a^i opinion they would not have 
styled and treated it as "tentative." They are well con- 
vinced, however, of the entire conformity of its general 
features to the principles approved by the Association, and 
to the conditions that should be fulfilled by a national 
university. 

President Eliot is hardly more fortunate in the field of 
political philosophy than in that of personal and petty 
criticism. In attempting to define "the true policy of 
our government as regards education," he says: 

" In almost all the writings about a national university, * * * there will be 
found the implication, if not the direct assertion, that it is somehow the duty of 
our government to maintain a magnificent university. * * * It is said that the 
state is a person, having a conscience and a moral responsibility; that the gov- 
ernment is the visible representative of the people's civilization, and the guard- 
ian of its honor and its morals, and should be the embodiment of all that is high 
and good in the people's character and aspirations. This moral person, this cor- 
porate representative of a Christian nation has (it is said) high duties and func- 



14 

tions commensurate with its great powers, and none more imperative than that 
of difluping kcowledge and advancing science. ♦ * * 1 he conception of gov- 
ernment on which thi» argument is based Is obsolescent everywhere. * ♦ * * 
Our government is a group of public servants appointed to do certain difficult and 
important work. It is not the guardian of the nation's morals; it does not neces- 
sarily represent the best virtue of the republic, and id not reeponsible for the na- 
tional character being Itself one of the products of that character. The doctrine 
of state personality and conscience, and the whole argument to the dignity and 
moral elevation of a Christian nation's government, as the basis of government 
duties, are natural enough under Grace-of-God governments, but they find no 
fironnd of application to modern republican confederations." 

He continues: 

"Moreover, for most Americans, these arguments prove a great deal too much; • 
for if they have the least tendency to persuade us that governments should direct 
any part of secular education, with how much greater force do they apply to the 
conduct by government of the religious education of the people, (since ' religion is 
the supreme interest '). * ♦ * We do not admit it to be our duty to establish 
a national church ;" and, " if a beneficent Christian government may rightfully 
leave the people to provide themselves with religious institutions, surely it may 
leave them to provide suitable universities for the education of their youth," 

It is seldom that a learned writer gets so mncli of fallacy 
and falsity into so small a compass. The doctrine here 
taught is pernicious and dangerous. It not only strips the 
government of every moral quality, but it aims a deadly 
blow at that far-seeing and beneficent policy of the Ameri- 
can government which from the beginning has steadily 
sought to insure the perpetuity of a free government, and 
the wise administration of all its affairs, by first providing 
for the necessary intelligence of the people. Carry Presi- 
dent Eliot's argument to its legitimate conclusion, and 
every act of the government in setting apart lands for the 
aid of public schools, as well as for the endowment of our 
state universities and the recent colleges of agriculture 
and the mechanic arts, was not only unnecessary but un- 
constitutional, and is therefore void. Had such doctrines 
had sway, where would have been all our noble state sy.s- 
tems of public instruction? where the thousands upon 
thousands of village and country schools which are now 
found throughout the entire west, and are fast finding 



15 

places in other portions of the country no less needy and 
yet otherwise unable to supply them? where the state 
universities of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wiscon- 
sin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Missis- 
sippi and California, and our new scientific schools, planted, 
or being established, in nearly every state in the Union? 
Is it not his argument, rather, that ^''proves too much." 
That the people of the United States, when they "repu- 
diated the doctrine of the " divine right of kings," and set 
up a representative government, at the same time decreed 
that the government so created was forever divorced from 
conscience; that all possible duties of the people's repre- 
sentatives are so precisely defined by the constitution as to 
forbid them the exercise of the least discretion, and hence 
the prerogatives of moral agents; these are conclusions 
that might sometimes be hastily drawn if one were to re- 
gard simply the deeds of some of our public functionaries, 
but, as here presented, they are" a body of doctrine full of 
danger to the republic, and sound alarmingly strange when 
they fall from the lips of a college president. 

We may admit that " our government is a group of ser- 
vants appointed to do certain difficult and important 
work; " but if President Eliot intends to so limit the term 
"certain" as to deny to those ''servants" any right of 
judgment whatever, and to relieve them from all moral ac- 
countability, — as to deny to them, therefore, such obvi- 
ous construction of their duties under the constitution, 
and unmistakably within the scope of its general purpose, 
as is found essential to the welfare of the nation, and even 
to the perpetuity of the free institutions the constitution 
was formed to establish and conserve, — then he is sowing 
the seed of a heresy which it was hoped had been burned 
out by the fires of national afiliction. 

Our government is not the inincipal " guardian of the 
nation's morals; " but is it to be blind to all moral consid- 



16 

erations? and is it to have no concern for the moral well- 
being of this great people? It does not a lira ys '''repre- 
sent the best virtue of the republic " — would God that it 
did! — but it does in some sort represent the virtue of the 
nation, ordinarily the average virtue perhaps; and the 
nearer it can be brought to a representation of the " best 
virtue " the better for the country and the world. It is 
not, of course, tvhollij "responsible for the national charac- 
ter, being itself one of the products of that character/* 
but it is nevertheless capable of using its immense dele- 
gated powers to elevate or degrade the national character, 
to brighten or tarnish the "national honor; " and to the 
full extent of that capability it is responsible, and is so 
held by the God of nations and the best judgment of man- 
kind. 

But, if our government were in no sense responsible for 
the national morals or national character, has not the na^ 
tion with the point of the bayonet, and with the precious 
blood of its patriots, written out this solemn verdict — that 

THE GOVERNMENT IS THE GUARDIAN OF THE LIFE, OF THE RE- 
PUBLIC? And will President Eliot or any other thinking 
American deny that education, universal and the highest 
possible, is of vital and pressing importance as a means to 
that end? 

If President Eliot is able to make no broad distinction 
between the duty of the government to promote the in- 
crease of virtue and intelligence, by encouraging the es- 
tablishment of schools of learning of every grade, from the 
lowest to the highest, and its duty to support schools for 
teaching the thousand-and-one conflicting dogmas of all 
the religious creeds of Christendom, or such one of those 
creeds as it might assume to be wholly true to the exclu- 
sion of all the rest, then it were useless to ply him with 
arguments. As for the founders of the government and 
the great body of the American people, they have found 



17 

no difficulty in making the proper distinction. But if 
there were no difficulty in the way of establishing religious 
schools of every sort, and such schools were granted to be 
no less necessary than secular schools to the safety of the 
republic, still is this logic found limping. For religious 
schools are such as can and will be established independent 
of government aid; whereas, in the case of secular schools, 
this may or may not be, according to the present intelli- 
gence and means of the ruling element in the community. 

Having done his best to invalidate the claims of educa- 
tion in general, President Eliot next disposes of the claims 
of university education in the following summary manner: 

" The question of national university or no national university is by no 
means synonymous with tlie question— shall the country have university educa- 
tion or not? The only question is, shall we have a university controlled by gov- 
ernment, or shall we continue to rely upon universities supported and controlled 
by other agencies?" 

" There is, then, no foundation whatever for the assumption that it is the duty 
of our government to establish a national university." 

And then, as if it were not enough to relieve the govern- 
ment from anything like an obligation in the premises, he 
ventures to state " one broad reason " why the government- 
is in duty bound not to " establish and maintain a univer- 
sity; " and here it is: 

" If the people of the United States have any special destiny, any particular 
function in the world, it is to try and work out, under t^xtraordinanly favorable- 
circum'tances the problem of free institutions for a heterogeneous, rich, multitu- 
dinous population, spread over a vast territory. Now the habit of being helped by 
the government, * * * is a most insidious and irresistible enemy of republi- 
canism, ♦ * * for the very essence of republicanism is self-reliance." 

Let us look at these two very important propositions. 

The first of them is a mere assertion resting on a 
totally groundless assumption, which makes a rather poor 
foundation. The work of the university committee began 
in a totally different fashion. It had its origin in a 
resolution, I know, but that resolution was grounded on 
2 



18 

something like a demonstration that we have, as yet, «o 
'^ universities supported and controlled by other agencies " 
on which to rely — that a university of the highest rank 
is not only a thing our country is yet wanting, but one 
that we can hardly hope to secure for the next hundred 
years without the aid of the government. 

No man should know this better than President Eliot. 
He stands at the head of a college which for more than 
two hundred years — meanwhile receiving many bequests 
from philanthropic men, as well as aid from provincial 
court, municipalities, and state, saying nothing of indirect 
aid from the general government — has been struggling 
towards a university standard, and which, nevertheless, 
to-day sees it afar off. As late as 1868, almost the last 
words of his distinguished predecessor — words as full of 
sadness as of truth — were in confirmation of what has 
just been said. Within recent years, the attempt has been 
made to take on the semblance of a university by opening 
what are called university lectures; but, as might have 
been anticipated, the success of this experiment has not 
been very encouraging; not because distinguished lec- 
turers have not been ready to serve the cause of learning to 
a reasonable extent, nor because there have not been per- 
sons anxious to undertake university courses, under favor- 
able conditions, but rather because the whole scheme is 
incomplete and provisional, resting upon no solid and per- 
manent foundation. 

I need not go over the;'list of our highest and strongest 
American institutions. They are doing the best they can 
under adverse conditions, many of them doing nobly. 
But neither names, nor high aspirations, nor even the con- 
secration of a small band of heroic teachers, nor all of these, 
can of themselves make a great university. There must 
be added means to an extent of which our best equipped 
schools are but an aggravating suggestion. There must be 



19 

means — not the stiuted means which come of even the 
most generous private gifts, or are voted by the most 
liberal legislatures, but such as the nation, with its vast 
resources, and it only, can give. 

There is then, a fii-m and irrefagible " foundation for the 
assumption that it is the duty of our government to 
establish a national university." 

Now let us consider the "one broad reason why our 
government should not establish and maintain a univer- 
sity." 

If the author of this reason, in speaking of " the problem 
of free institutions," would have it understood that he is 
doubtful whether a popular form of government is the 
best for our people — that he is, even thus early in our po- 
litical history looking over his shoulder for " the divine right 
of kings," — then is he propagating a political heresy for 
which he must account to the public sentiment of the coun- 
try. If, however, as is more likely, he means to say sim- 
ply that it is still a problem how best to administer, and 
the most surelj^ perpetuate, the free government we have, 
there are not a few who will agree with him. But it is 
questionable if even he will deny that one great and prim- 
ary means to these ends is the education of the people. 
For if, as he saj^s, " it does by no means follow that an ed- 
ucated and intelligent people will be republican," will he 
deny that it would be utterly impossible to maintain a re- 
public without intelligence of the citizens? Or will he 
deny that the higher the degree of the public intelligence 
the greater the probabilty that the people will appreciate 
their prerogatives and duties ? How then does he know that 
" we deceive ourselves dangerously when we think or speak 
as if education * * could guarantee republican institu- 
tions,"? As for myself, I am fully persuaded that a free 
government is the normal government for civilized men; 
that in proportion as nations rise in the scale of intelligence 



20 

they approach this form. This is the lesson of history; it 
is also the voice of reason. 

Having satisfied himself that education is not essential 
to the safety of the republic, our author of the " one 
broad reason " next proceeds to argue that even education, 
if it cannot be had without the help of government, had 
better not be had at all. This helping process " saps 
the foundations of public liberty." 

Certainly no American will deny that self-reliance is an 
essential element of individual manhood, as well as of a 
noble national character. It is precisely for this reason, 
among others, that we urge the duty of the government 
to care for the highest practicable education of the whole 
people. For there is no dependence so abject as that of a 
profoundly ignorant man or nation; no self-reliance so 
complete and royal as that which comes of intelligence. 
Ignorance is slavery; knowledge is power and independ- 
ence! 

Moreover, by what quirk of logic does President Eliot 
reach the conclusion that the government of the United 
States is an independent personality, having powers abso- 
lutely its own, and being capable of giving to the people of 
force and substance they do not in and of themselves pos- 
sess, thus invading their independence and weakening their 
self reliance? A little while ago, he was heard saying, 
** our government is a group of servants appointed to do 
certain difficult and important work;" the people them- 
selves being, of course, the masters, decreeing and doing 
whatever is done, through and iy these servants, and hence 
being in no such sense as is just now claimed separable, 
either in thought or in fact, from the government. Hold- 
ing him to this first theory, the most nearly correct of 
any he has put forth, it will be difficult to see how the 
public liberty is endangered b}' the people's servants doing 



31 

anything, in harmony with the great charter of the public 
liberties, which they, the people, need to have done and 
direct their servants to do in their behalf. 

As I understand it, the government of this country is 
nothing very different from a trusteeship or agency, estab- 
lished by the whole people for public convenience and for 
permanent as well as present advantage. The constitution 
is a binding agreement of the people as to the purpose and 
organization of this agency, the character of the agents to 
be employed, the manner of their choosing, and the nature 
and scope of the duties they are to perform. 

Cherishing the theory of self-reliance, the people have 
not usually deemed it duty or wisdom to take of their 
common substance and give to the individual citizen or 
the individual state, even where such giving would promote 
a necessary public object, unless it has seemed very clear 
that such object could not, or pretty certainly would not, 
be attained without the national aid. But who will say 
that the people, acting through this agency, the govern- 
ment, are not both competent and in duty bound to lend 
the public aid to all such enterprises, not in conflict with 
express provisions of the constitution, and in acknowl- 
edged harmony with its whole spirit and purpose, as are 
by them, the people, deemed essential to the general wel- 
fare, and as are either not possible of accomplishment 
without that aid, or, being possible, are in great danger of 
being too long delayed? 

Admitting, for the sake of the argument, the full force 
of the doctrine that " government is * * * not to do a 
public good eYenunless that good he oflierivise unattainable,'''' 
the argument is still good for nothing against the object 
we seek to accomplish, since it is " a public good otherwise 
unattainable.'" Primary schools there would be without 
public aid; but they would be scattering in location, irreg- 
ular and inefficient in their work, and, worst of all, utterly 



22 

wanting in many cases wliere most needed. Colleges there 
would be, as any one may see who looks abroad; bnt except 
here and there, wheie particularly favored with the 
accumulations of several generations or the princely gift 
of a noble man, they must of necessity have a sickly life, 
and do a feeble work. While of a great university, with 
its vast array of auxiliary establishments, its multitude of 
learned professors, and its requisite annual income of a 
million or more, it is hardly necessary to say, the hope 
of such an institution on any merely private, denomina- 
tional, or even state, foundation is simply chimerical. 

Again, if the question of means were not involved, there 
is still " one broad reason '' why this " public good," the 
schools the country needs, including the university, are 
"otherwise unattainable" — this, namely, that if estab- 
lished and maintained in sufficient number, and of every 
class and rank, by private means, they would still not be 
public schools. 

This brings me to the last point in President Eliot's " re- 
port " having the semblance of an argument. He asks, 
with all the apparent sincerity of an anxious enquirer, 
" What should make a university at the capital of the 
United States, established and supported by the general 
government, any more national than any other American 
university?" 

He seems to have suddenly discovered that all his 
specious arguments against the duty and privilege of the 
people to do anything through the government in the 
interest of education are utterly groundless; and so, in his 
desperation, he unbosoms himself of a single last reason 
he had preferred to conceal; hoping that local jealousies, 
if not misrepresentations and sophistry, may defeat the 
project. He may be properly understood as saying, in 
substance, if not in these words: " Well, if after all 



21 

anything, in harmony with the great charter of the public 
liberties, which they, the people, need to have clone and 
direct their servants to do in their behalf. 

As I understand it, the government of this country is 
nothing very different from a trusteeship or agency, estab- 
lished by the whole people for public convenience and for 
permanent as well as present advantage. The constitution 
is a binding agreement of the people as to the purpose and 
organization of this agency, the character of the agents to 
be employed, the manner of their choosing, and the nature 
and scope of the duties they are to perform. 

Cherishing the theory of self-reliance, the people have 
not usually deemed it duty or wisdom to take of their 
common substance and give to the individual citizen or 
the individual state, even where such giving would promote 
a necessary public object, unless it has seemed very clear 
that such object could not, or pretty certainly would not, 
be attained without the national aid. But who will say 
that the people, acting through this agency, the govern- 
ment, are not both competent and in duty bound to lend 
the public aid to all such enterprises, not in conflict with 
express provisions of the constitution, and in acknowl- 
edged harmony with its whole spirit and purpose, as are 
by them, the people, deemed essential to the general wel- 
fare, and as are either not possible of accomplishment 
without that aid, or, being possible, are in great danger of 
being too long delayed? 

Admitting, for the sake of the argument, the full force 
of the doctrine that " government is * * * not to do a 
public good eYenunless that good he otherwise unattainable,'" 
the argument is still good for nothing against the object 
we seek to accomplish, since it is " a public good otherwise 
unattainable.'" Primary schools there would be without 
public aid; but they would be scattering in location, irreg- 
ular and inefficient in their work, and, worst of all, utterly 



22 

wanting in many cases where most needed. Colleges tliere 
would be, as any one may see who looks abroad; but except 
here and there, where particularly favored with the 
accumulations of several generations or the princely gift 
of a noble man, they must of necessity have a sickly life, 
and do a feeble work. While of a great university, with 
its vast array of auxiliary establishments, its multitude of 
learned professors, and its requisite annual income of a 
million or more, it is hardly necessary to say, the hope 
of such an institution on any merely private, denomina- 
tional, or even state, foundation is simply chimerical. 

Again, if the question of means were not involved, there 
is still " one broad reason " why this " public good," the 
schools the country needs, including the university, are 
" otherwise unattainable " — this, namely, that if estab- 
lished and maintained in sufficient number, and of every 
class and rank, by private means, they would still not be 
public schools. 

This brings me to the last point in President Eliot's " re- 
port " having the semblance of an argument. He asks, 
with all the apparent sincerity of an anxious enquirer, 
" What should make a university at the capital of the 
United States, established and supported by the general 
government, any more national than any other American 
university?" 

He seems to have suddenly discovered that all his 
specious arguments against the duty and privilege of the 
people to do anything through the government in the 
interest of education are utterly groundless ; and so, in his 
desperation, he unbosoms himself of a single last reason 
he had preferred to conceal; hoping that local jealousies, 
if not misrepresentations and sophistry, may defeat the 
project. He may be properly understood as saying, in 
substance, if not in these words: " Well, if after all 



23 

that I have said to hinder it, the having a national uni- 
versity is foreordained, vrhy establish and maintain it 
through the agency of the general government? and if 
that be necessarj^, why insist on planting it at Washing- 
ton? Are there not many more important towns than 
Washington ? If one may rely on the census, even Bos- 
ton is larger! But if it tvere established by the govern- 
ment — that is, by the people's ' servants' for the people, 
so as to be emphatically their university; and were located 
at the national capital — the common ground of the nation, 
the centre of national interest, where the purifying, ele- 
vating and guiding influence of such an institution would 
be most directly brought to bear on the national councils 
and on every branch of the general government, as well 
as the more easily diffused throughout the country; and if 
it were controlled in a general way by agents of the people's 
appointment, and administered by them in the interest of 
the common country and of republican liberty, as well as in 
the primary interest of universal truth ; — I say, though all 
these were in fact accomplished, still I do not see how the 
university so founded, located and administered would be 
any more national than any other university of the coun- 
try. I know that Washington, and Madison, and John 
Quincy Adams, and the present Chief Magistrate, have 
seen it, but I can't see it." 

Let us be charitable enough to believe him. 

Last of all, invoking ridicule, President Eliot says, 
" There is something childish in this uneasy hankering for 
a big university in America." 

Indeed! Then let us be curious enough to see who 
have been the chief hankerers. If, by "hankering," he 
means a sincere and earnest desire, and he has no occasion 
for using the word in any other sense in this connection, 
then they are legion. 



24 

Not to make the catalogue too long, M^e may begin by 
taking a look into the Federal Convention which framed 
the constitution of the United States; where are found 
James Madison, Charles Pinckney and others of the illus- 
trious founders, urging the incorporation into that instru- 
ment of a positive provision for the establishment of a 
national university, and only yielding the point on account 
of the prevailing opinion that such specific provision was 
"unnecessary," since the object could be reached under 
provisions already embraced. These " uneasy " patriots 
Avere not long without company; for, as early as 1789, 
they found another childish hankerer in the person of 
Geo. Washington, who, in several of his messages, includ- 
ing his first and his last, urged with great force that 
" nothing could better deserve the patronage of Congress 
than the promotion of literature and science," and to that 
end pressed the expediency as well as duty of founding " a 
national university." More than this, he showed the deep 
sincerity of his " hankering," by giving a liberal share of 
his earthly substance, when he prepared to die, in the 
hope that so handsome a gift, added to his official entreat- 
ies, would eventually induce Congress to undertake the ful- 
fillment of this duty. 

In 1810, James Madison, having meantime become 
President, was again seized with an "uneasiness," and 
hankered worse than ever for a "big university;" plead- 
ing with force and eloquence its great importance, and 
especially dwelling, as did Washington so often, on the 
harmonizing and nationalizing influence it would exert 
on the patriotic sentiment of the whole people. 

In 1825, John Quincy Adams, while occupying the 
presidential chair, was taken with the same disorder, and 
hankered in the same way; and so the importance of a 
" big university " was yet again urged upon the attention 
of Congress. 



25 

From that date forward, for many years, I remember no 
recurrence of this troublesome complaint in the presi- 
dential office, until at length last December it showed 
itself, and in a more dangerous form than ever, in Presi- 
dent Grant; leading him, not only to press the need of 
" a big university in America," but even to recommend 
that a sufficient amount of the public lands be set apart 
for its endowment. 

Nor was this long period between 1825 and 1873 without 
distinguished hankerers. The interim was an interreg- 
num. The disorder held its ground; seizing, with varying 
degrees of activity, upon many of the country's ablest 
scholars and statesmen — such as the lamented Horace 
Mann, Bishop Potter, Professor Agassiz and Senator 
Sumner; the still living and illustrious ex-Presidents 
Henry P. Tappan, Thomas Hill, Mark Hopkins and Barnas 
Sears, Professor Joseph Henry, of the Smithsonian Insti- 
tution, President Barnard, now of Columbia, and Admiral 
Sands, of the National Observatory; numerous members 
of both houses of Congress; a multitude of our most 
effective present laborers in the several fields of educa- 
tion, including, among others, the presidents and profes- 
sors of leading colleges and universities, the heads of many 
state and city departments of public instruction; and not 
a few of the most influential journalists of the country. 

A large majority of all these have been, and are, not 
merely hankerers for " a hig university," but for a national 
university. Indeed, if we say nothing of national, even 
President Eliot has not escaped. One has but to look 
into his reports of Harvard College, of late years,— more 
especially since the matter of a national university has 
been considerably agitated,— to satisfy himself that few 
hankerers have ever hankered more for "a big univer- 
sity " than has he. 



26 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



029 479 524 8 



It is a matter of some regret tliat a man so well circum- 
stanced for helping on the needy cause of education should 
throw himself across the path, not only of this particular 
movement, but also of the entire work of popular educa- 
tion as approved by the people of the United states and 
so long carried on successfully with the help of the 
government. He will learn, however, that he can do but 
little to hinder it. The government cannot now repudi- 
ate or reverse its beneficent educational policy. The logic 
of facts and of reason will not permit it to stop short of 
the most complete provision for every department of 
American education. The people are growing in their 
realization of the necessity there is for insuring the best 
possible education of the masses. The variety and vast- 
ness of the national resources, and the rapid progress of 
other nations, are making a strong and growing demand 
upon the industrial arts, which they are powerless to meet- 
without the help of the best technical schools. While the 
conspicuous place we of necessity hold among the great 
nations of the earth, the nature of our government, and 
the genius and aspirations of our people, are reasons deep 
and urgent for a high and thorough culture that must early 
move the nation to adopt measures that will give to the 
United States a true university. 

" Ohsta principlis " is a watchword too late, in this 
case, by nearly a hundred years ! 



%\. 



iiiyiSif,^y.,°f'..,.99.NGRESS 



029 479 524 8 



